The great American health care swindle: the treason of tort reform?

June 23, 10:46 PMSandusky County Politics ExaminerMichael Stahl

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Sandusky County Politics Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

First, the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

Rather simple and elegant, is it not? Any misunderstanding about the language, any room for interpretation? Yeah, I don't think so either.

Then, why is it that those supposed “defenders of the constitution”, the republicans, openly advocate infringing on this “right” in their own platform. They are then backed up by the tin-tongued, and even false, yammering of their Fourth Estate. In order to do what exactly? Sure, eliminating liability would reduce costs, but it also reduces individual freedom, and places Health-care costs in the hands of bureaucrats-since they will (and already do to a large extent) decide what lawsuits are “frivolous” and which have merit, rather than a jury of free people, as it is supposed to be. Something that the Revolutionary generation was willing, in part, to take up arms to defend. Hence its inclusion in the Bill of Rights.

I won't pretend the the current White House occupant is necessarily any better on this issue, indeed, he is not really, but he is not screaming for a soft coup either. If we are so naive to believe the “the Constitution” has some bearing on the actions of the current denizens of DC, then we must assume that those who advocate a departure from that “law” are practicing sedition, that they are traitors, must we not?

This is the case put forth by many of the more mercenary of the republican sycophantry when anyone dares to question “security” policy (though that is actually expressly permitted by the “Constitution”...that they “defend”) of the regime (so long as it is a republican regime, of course). Despite that they actually advocate direct violation of the “Constitution”.

What is important here is what is being lost, quickly, and that is the very thin strand of law and tradition that still restrains the profligacy of Washington, and checks its corruption. The idea that a trial by jury should be held when an injury (note: injury : in jury) of some sort, to property or person, occurs to determine fault and recompense is at least as old as the Magna Charta, if indeed not considerably older. It has though been consistently challenged by those who find being liable for damages that they cause to be a matter of inconvenience. Why should they suffer thusly? A few coins in the proper pockets solves the problem.

It is a tradition that free people have fought time and time again to preserve from the primacy of the ruling class, whoever they might be. Often you hear the mantra from conservatives that medical care should not be put in the hands of the government, that it would be akin to waiting in line at the BMV or some other place of mindless red-tapery. I agree, I don't want government in my health care in the slightest, including most especially making the decision of when I have a real injury, or a “frivolous” one. That this point is missed on so many is proof to me that Kent McManigal, the Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner, is right about schools.

I'm no worshiper of the Constitution by any means, indeed, I think it is a dead letter that has been violated since nearly its inception, for better or worse, and a very bad compromise in any event. And while the “Constitution” essentially precludes legal treason in this country, I have now problem using the term to describe people like Ann Coulter who as a lawyer certainly knows better, since they are not only advocating defying the “rule of law” by “interpretation", but they also attempting to deny me the “natural law” right of seeking restitution for injuries, in short, denying justice. They are enemies of freedom every bit as much as those who wish to “nationalize” industry.

If you are in the camp that claims to be “conservative”, and pro-freedom, and you support “tort reform” I sincerely urge you to take a second look at the issue-you are asking for more government control, not less, more regulation, not less, and less freedom, not more.

If you think this is over the top, then I would echo the late, great Barry Goldwater (R. AZ), and say to you : "Let me remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

Others like this:

Here on Gun Control

Plain old freedom

And Insurance companies.

This is a part of an ongoing series, more to come.